The human mind is a bewildering and complex entity. For the better part of, oh, hominid existence, one can find philosophical writings attempting to deconstruct and understand human thought. In fact, the mind-body problem, understanding how the mind relates to the body, remains a contentious philosophical argument even today. Two major schools of thought, Monoism and Dualism, provide different answers to this question. Dualism states the mind and body can be separated, while Monoism posits the mind and body are not independent entities. Should we group the mind and body together, or are they in fact separate physical entities? Why, you’re probably asking, do I bring up this incredibly fascinating philosophical dilemma? Well, the philosophical mind-body problem in its singular vs dualist dichotomy seems to epitomize humanity in its attempt to understand the natural world.
Strict definition of a natural event allows for interpretation, recollection, and distinction of differing phenomena within the natural world. If we, as humans, didn't create words representing physical entities, communication would be nearly impossible. While this practice of defininition is incredibly beneficial to human learning and interpersonal conveyance, strict definition leading to oversimplified dichotomous comparison can lead to inaccurate interpretation of complex natural phenomena. In fact, this style of dichotomous thinking can indeed be quite problematic in several facets of life. To understand the apparent dilemma, it may be beneficial to discuss a few examples of the human-induced false dichotomy within both science and society today.
What better place to start than with the unit of life itself; the cell. Life as we know it ranges from single celled bacterial species to gigantic multicellular entities such as elephants, whales, and of course humans. Underlying the observable complexity and beauty of each multicellular animal are trillions of cells, carrying out an array of biological processes to maintain life. Events such as oxidative respiration to produce energy (ATP), DNA replication, mitotic cell division, gene expression, and immune response all occur within the confines of a single cell to allow growth and maintenance of biological life. When first learning about the cell in basic biology class, it is commonplace to discern the basic cellular processes as occurring statically within a single cell. Beautiful textbook diagrams break each of these important processes down in a stepwise manner, greatly facilitating learning of the individual steps required for the single biological goal to be accomplished within a single cell.
While this is a great way to first learn, it is important to understand that each of these cellular processes occur constantly within every single cell in a dynamic fashion. To put that statement into perspective, we can perform a quick calculation. Current research estimates there are approximately 37.2 trillion cells within the human body. A single DNA nucleotide is added once every ~0.02 seconds, a single molecule of energy (ATP) synthesized once every ~0.000014 seconds, and a single molecular collision occurring every ~0.000000000001 - 0.000000000000001 seconds. That equates in short scale notation to roughly 1.86 quadrillion nucleotides added, 2.66 quintillion molecules of ATP synthesized, and 1 septillion - 1 octillion molecular collisions occurring every second among all the cells within a human body. While it is practical to define these cellular processes as occurring statically within a single cell, it is not accurate to think about molecular mechanisms of life as occurring on the singular or static scale in the context of a complex multicellular organism. Biological reactions occur all the time, with varying reaction kinetics and dynamics. Instead of thinking about each cellular process as dichotomous in nature within a single cell, these molecular programs are inherently dynamic and vary tremendously when summed over your ~37 trillion cells.
Geckos, Bison, E. coli, Corn, Slime molds, Mushrooms, Humans. When these words are spoken or printed, an image likely pops into your head for each of the previously listed words. When we think of a biological species, we tend to place individuals into groups based on shared morphological characteristics; all corn has yellow kernels & green leaves, all mushrooms are stout with a single stalk supporting a half-sphere cap, and all geckos are green and appear on Geico commercials. While these prototypical classifications are generally accurate, they first begin to break down as organisms become smaller. How does one distinguish closely related singled-celled and microscopic bacterial species? With the advent of the genomics era, sequencing of entire genomes has allowed scientists to answer this question. One can take any single organism and extract the exact DNA sequence present within that individual. In other words, we can extract the biological blueprint for survival within any individual on the planet using modern DNA technology. Extraction of this DNA blueprint then allows scientists to group organisms into different species, based specifically on the percentage of DNA that is shared between those individuals. The closer one DNA sequence matches another individual’s DNA sequence, the more likely it is those two individuals are closely related. Thus, a group of individuals with very similar DNA sequence are termed a biological species. But, this DNA methodology now begs a new question; at what percentage of DNA difference do we consider two groups of organisms separate species?
This apparent problem arises from the fact that we, as humans, seek to define groups of organisms as a single species. Is there a need to group individuals as a ‘species’ or defined population? Over the course of geological time, the lines of relatedness have always been blurred among life forms on Earth. Let’s utilize a specific example to make this point:
Approximately 6 million years ago, the human and chimpanzee lineages shared a common ancestor.
If we were to travel back in time 4 million years ago, the human lineage would likely appear quite similar morphologically to the chimpanzee lineage.
At what point in time did the chimp lineage become ‘different’ from the human lineage?
There is no correct answer for determining when you and your cousin’s future generations are no longer related. The same can be applied to all organisms on planet Earth; at what point do we draw the line for relatedness among any pair of organisms? This is the apparent false dichotomy of human understanding - There is no need to group organisms into species classifications, other than to distinguish these groups for clarification among humans.
Get rid of the drinking age! Ah yes, a popular social justice argument heard from high school and college students between the ages of 18-21. At some point, consuming alcohol, voting for executive and legislative offices, and driving a car shift from being illegal to perfectly legal within the United States. This all changes, of course, with the coming of a particular birthday: driving at 16, voting at 18, alcohol at 21. The reason for having a drinking age is scientifically sound; young individuals who consume alcohol are at a higher risk to stunt brain and neural development, along with an increased risk of developing some sort of alcohol dependence later in life.
While these observed consequences of early alcohol consumption are indeed factual, the effects of alcohol on an individual basis are observably variable. Every 18, 19, 20, and 21 year old is quite different in his or her genetic makeup and previous environmental exposures. Thus, the fact that one draws the line at age 21 is an instance of the human-induced false dichotomy; nothing significant biologically happens the night you turn 21 to prepare you for drinking. A large continuous distribution exists for the ability of an individual to tolerate alcohol consumption. The drinking age, however, exists because it balances positive & negative consequences of alcohol consumption, with age 21 likely representing the mean of the individually continuous alcohol response distribution. The observed drinking age dichotomy exists as an artifact of hominid society.
Finals week - the stress is real. If you’ve made it this far, thanks for hanging with me. We’re now at the final example, and the reason I chose this topic in the first place. You can probably guess where I’m going with this - standardized testing & GPA. Standardized tests like the ACT & SAT provide a benchmark for assessing formal reasoning and mental aptitude. GPA attempts to indicate the summation of an individual's work ethic and natural intelligence. While the ends seemingly justify the means of their usage, neither GPA nor standardized testing can accurately predict intelligence and success throughout life. In fact, intelligence as a whole is quite difficult to quantify. Regardless, GPA and standardized testing requirements for admission, acceptance, awards, and job opportunities litter the collegiate environment.
The idea that a literal GPA or test score cutoff exists to be admitted into a particular school, or to be given a particular job offer, is a terrific example of the human-induced false dichotomy. We need some sort of measurement to compare students attempting to obtain paying employment, and GPA can serve as a comparison. It seems simple from the outset; if a particular individual didn’t obtain a score of X on the ACT, they are therefore not intelligent enough to attend institution Y. This is undoubtedly false. A continuous distribution exists for test performance on each exam. Students scoring near the top of an exam distribution find themselves separated by very few points from those scoring slightly above the average. Fewer points still separate those scoring above average from the students scoring at the average of the distribution. The fact that this array of exam scores is then effectively grouped into A, B, C, D, and F bins, and then averaged over the course of a semester and eventually college career, is perhaps the most discontinuously painful manner to evaluate student performance and aptitude.
Lost in this crude grade extraction and standardization are nuances that show local differences between each and every student within each and every class. The idea that our human-devised GPA methodology to assess aptitude can lead to conclusions such as “this individual clearly possesses a brilliant mind ” is completely and utterly wrong. Intelligence is an extremely complex dynamic phenomenon, possessing the ability to rapidly change over the course of one’s lifetime. While grades are a decent indicator, they should not be taken as absolute truth regarding the ability of one to make intelligent conclusions throughout the course of a lifetime. The false dichotomy perpetuated by a classical schooling system, albeit a historically successful one, most definitely has its evaluative flaws.
In the end, it’s about perspective. If you’ve taken anything from this piece, I hope you’ve gleaned new perspective. As cliché has it, life can be viewed from several different perspectives. Physics, chemistry, and molecular biology frequently interpret the world from the atomic and molecular level, focusing on minutia to make conclusion. Conversely, world leaders and CEOs make conclusion from an extensive and all-embracing point of view. The false dichotomy present at each of these levels isn’t a bad thing; it allows for clear decision-making, learning, and communication among those utilizing the same perspective. However, being aware of our inherent dichotomous human nature is important when conducting higher-level thinking to make conclusion, especially among individuals coming from different worldly perspectives. As our species continues to progress technologically, we’re gaining the capability to impact the planet and each other’s lives through avenues previously unimaginable. Throughout this process, certain contentious choices must be made. It is almost never as simple as “yes or no.” Different perspectives will cloud classical dichotomous thinking. The challenge is to be aware; to incorporate a mindset of continuity when listening to and interpreting the world around you. If one can do this, new understanding of the natural world becomes apparent and, in my opinion, quite extraordinarily intriguing.
Thank you for all the support.
P.S. - As we move into the summer months, I'll be publishing content at more frequent rate. Please contact me using the links at the bottom of the page if you have any topics of interest for future posts. I'd love to involve audience feedback as often as possible!
Cheers.
